Leave a Comment Kathleen
Blankenhorn lied to the NYT about Rekers
June 7, 2010
By Julia Rosen
This is bizarre, yet somehow unsurprising. David Blankenhorn, star witness for the defense, who was dismantled by Boies on the stand penned a letter-to-the-editor, kvetching about being tied to George Rekers. Blankenhorn swore that he cross his heart, hope to die, never read any of Rekers’ works.
My expert report to the court — which was written entirely by me, includes a list of scholarly sources and is available for anyone to read — includes no mention of Mr. Rekers. And for good reason: I have never met Mr. Rekers or read any of his writings. I recently learned that a separate, lawyer-generated document submitted to the court apparently does list an article by Mr. Rekers in connection with my testimony, but that document, on this point, is in error.
Turns out he lied. At least he is correcting the record, with yet another letter written to the Times. (h/t Joe.My.God)
In a letter published on May 25, I incorrectly stated that I have never read anything written by the conservative minister George Rekers. In fact, in preparing for my report and deposition in the California Proposition 8 trial, I read one report to the court on a previous California marriage case written by Mr. Rekers, as well as a report to the same court taking a position opposed to Mr. Rekers’s.
Whoopsies…forgot all about that didn’t you. Did you also forget about submitting that article by Rekers to the court? Or are you still trying to blame that on the lawyers?
Too bad Boies doesn’t get to have another go at him on the stand. That would have been entertaining.
This won’t effect the trial at all, just Blankenhorn’s already diminished reputation. And it leaves one question: why did Blankenhorn feel so compelled to send this correction to the New York Times?
Filed under: Statements
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
34 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Mark | June 7, 2010 at 9:16 am
When you tell the truth, you do not have to remember the story you made up. When you lie, the truth eventually surfaces.
2.
Spenser | June 7, 2010 at 9:54 am
While I completely agree with the sentiment behind this post, I think you meant "This won't _affect_ the trial at all." To effect the trial would cause it to happen in the first place.
3.
cc | June 7, 2010 at 9:58 am
And I thought the only thing that would keep Blankenhorn from looking like an ass is for him to stop talking. Turns out I gave him too much credit.
4.
Kathleen | June 7, 2010 at 10:08 am
He made it pretty clear at the trial that he likes to hear himself speak. pompous ass.
5.
Bryan | June 7, 2010 at 10:16 am
Well, he accomplished what he set out to on point three… he certainly made it interesting!
6.
Richard A. Walter (s | June 7, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Wait a minute! Blankenhorn had a reputation to diminish? that is news to me. I didn't think his reputation was all that stellar to begin with. He is just trying to play CYA and not get himself any deeper in the mire than he already is. Only problem is that the more he wriggles and squirms, the deeper he causes himself to be sucked down into that same mire he is trying so desperately to get out of.
7.
Ronnie | June 7, 2010 at 1:56 pm
"GOOD GOD MAN!!!!!!!!"……..<3…Ronnie
8.
Michelle Evans | June 7, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Now tell the truth here, is there one person following the P8TT web site that would believe one word one of these guys would ever utter? They have proven time and again that they will lie about anything and everything if it keeps our equal rights out of reach. And when caught in one lie, they just search for another to try and cover the first.
Look at Rekers and the RentBoy scandal in the first place. He goes and says how he had no idea the kid he was hiring was from a gay escort site even though you have to go through confirmation of being of age and willing to view sexual content to even enter the site. Then when he says it all came to light during the trip that he chose that "opportunity" to try and get the poor kid to see the light of god.
Have to wonder if Blankenhorn has ever used RentBoy services…
9.
Santa Barbara Mom | June 7, 2010 at 3:46 pm
lol. That's just so classic!
10.
Kathleen | June 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm
We know this, but now there's a study…
"Compared to the traditionally reared teens, adolescents with lesbian parents rated significantly higher in social, academic and total competence, according to the study. The teens with lesbian parents also rated significantly lower when it came to social problems, rule-breaking and aggressive behavior than teens raised in more traditional families." http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-healt…
11.
cc | June 7, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Oh that can never get old!
12.
Kathleen | June 7, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Will someone please tell me when this was said? I keep seeing references to it, but missed it and don't know where it came form.
13.
Alto | June 7, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Kathleen,
It evidently was addressed in an editorial piece submitted to the New York Times in May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/l25rich…
14.
cc | June 7, 2010 at 9:27 pm
This is where Boies is cross examining Miller! I believe it was Day 10??? Boies gets so fed up with Miller repeatedly not answering questions he finally just shows his frustration out load with the now famous (at least to the trail trackers): "Good God Man"
Oh I wish I could have been there.
15.
K!r!lleXXI | June 7, 2010 at 9:35 pm
@Kathleen
“Good God, man!” was allegedly said by Boies on Miller's cross-examination on day 10 of the trial (January 25). You can find this phrase in liveblogging transcript by Rick Jacobs, after Walker overruled Thompson's objection about badgering the witness. It is also page 2555 of Volume 10 of official transcripts (page 225 of PDF file that I have); line 23 of that page contains court reporter's comment in parentheses (right after objection was overruled, but before Boies continued his cross-examination):
I suppose, this is when the phrase in question might have been uttered, but either Walker gave the reporter the look not to put it into record, or the reporter herself decided to do just that.
In comments to liveblogging for day 12 a certain "chet" claimed he was in the courtroom and didn't hear those words. Go figure.
–K@RU
16.
Kathleen | June 7, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Thanks everyone. Kirille, that explains why I couldn't find it in the transcripts.
17.
Sagesse | June 7, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Same-sex marriage foes embrace John Eastman, Andy Pugno
Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_swarm/2010/06/same-se…
Pugno is running for state assembly in CA, with the support of NOM?
18.
Richard A. Walter (s | June 7, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Yes, and there is a reference to this study, and another one, in the latest update I received from Truth Wins Out's newsletter. I will have to go to the other computer to be able to copy & paste the link to this. Will do that in the next few minutes. And there is also a good McDonald's ad from France embedded in this newsletter.
19.
Sagesse | June 7, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Blankenhorn is oblivious. A so-called expert who can't remember what he read and who wrote it in arriving at his so-called expert opinion… to the point where he has to correct himself in the NYT. It wasn't enough to behave like an arrogant, blundering fool at trial… now he has to do it in the NYT.
If they're not careful, these dolts are going to run out of expert witnesses soon
. They're already reduced to using the ones with no credentials whatever as it is.
20.
Sagesse | June 7, 2010 at 10:58 pm
On the same subject:
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/06/sacr…
21.
Bolt | June 7, 2010 at 11:54 pm
R.I.P. Proposition 8
11/6/08-6/16/10
22.
Monty | June 8, 2010 at 1:57 am
The H8ers must have gone to the thrift store for their "expert" witnesses or something like that. This is just sad.
23.
Kathleen | June 8, 2010 at 2:13 am
You do realize there won't be a decision on the 16th, right?
24.
Bob | June 8, 2010 at 2:49 am
right, no decision, but finally closing arguments, has there been any final notice about the publication of those?
25.
Kathleen | June 8, 2010 at 5:07 am
UPDATE: Walker issues two documents:
Doc 677 – Questions for Closing Arguments http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677
"The court provides the following questions to the parties in advance of closing arguments. What follows is by no means an exhaustive list of questions, but is intended simply to assist the parties in focusing their closing arguments.
If the parties wish, they may answer any question in writing on or before June 15, 2010 at 12 PM PDT. Alternatively, the parties should be prepared to address the questions during closing arguments. While the court has directed certain questions to certain parties, any party can if it wishes choose to answer any question."
Doc 678 – Schedule for Closing Arguments.
June 16, 2010
10:00 AM – 11:30 AM Plaintiffs
11:30 AM – 11:45 AM City and County of San Francisco
11:45 AM – 12:00 PM Governor, Attorney General and county defendants
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch
1:00 PM – 3:15 PM Proponents
3:15 PM – 3:45 PM Plaintiffs’ rebuttal
26.
Kathleen | June 8, 2010 at 5:07 am
Here's the direct link to the Schedule: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724934/Doc-678
27.
Regan DuCasse | June 8, 2010 at 5:43 am
I saw that in the NYTimes and wondered who would pick up on that lie.
You are the first, that I know of.
There are no credible, or evidence packing witnesses for the defense of Prop. 8.
And there doesn't seem to be a limit to when they will all step on their dicks eventually.
And pretend they didn't know their fly was open.
28.
Kathleen | June 8, 2010 at 5:47 am
No response from Walker on the question of televising closing arguments. I find it even more surprising that Walker hasn't ruled on the outstanding motions.
29.
Kathleen | June 8, 2010 at 5:50 am
I saw it first in Joe Jervis's blog Joe.My.God.
30.
celdd | June 8, 2010 at 8:08 am
Very interesting questions for both sides! Thanks so much for the link.
I'm glad he issued these in advance so well thought out answers are at the ready. Not that I expected otherwise, but Judge Walker seems to be really delving into the thorny issues so that they can be addressed in his decision.
31.
Bob | June 8, 2010 at 10:53 am
wow these are great qkuestions, the public deserves an opportunity to here the answers, education for all
Here's hoping question 12 to the plaintiffs, will drive a wedge between church and state, PERMANENTLY
32.
Ronnie | June 8, 2010 at 10:57 am
You know Bob…I was thinking the same thing…<3…Ronnie
33.
chet | June 9, 2010 at 3:17 am
I also love the Good God Man comment, and I hope he did say it. But I didn't hear it in the courtroom. I was pretty attentively loving every moment of Boies. But he could've said it under his breath. I was hoping Rick would clarify if he heard Boies say it or if it was his own comment.
34. Woodworking Plans&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 5:19 pm
George’s Woodworking Blog…
[...]we like to recognize different websites on the web, even if they aren’t associated to us, by linking to them. Below are some online websites worth looking at[...]…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.